November 2009 Archives

In a suit by a contractor against a defaulting subcontractor and two sureties on the subcontractor's performance bond, summary judgment for sureties is affirmed where, under the agreement, even after declaring a default, plaintiff could have proceeded to remedy the default on its own only after it gave "reasonable notice" to defendants-sureties that it intended to do so, but it gave no such notice.

North Carolina's petition for review of a final rule of the EPA removing the northern part of the State of Georgia from EPA's regulations under its national ambient air quality standard (NAAQS) for ozone measured during a one-hour period is dismissed, where reinstating Georgia under that standard would not lower Georgia's emissions and thus North Carolina failed to meet the redressability requirement for Article III standing.

In an action alleging that the police unlawfully arrested plaintiffs during a protest, summary judgment for plaintiffs is affirmed in part where the city did not have probable cause to believe that the protesters knew the protest at issue lacked a permit. However, the order is reversed in part where: 1) the city only needed to show that the officers had reasonable grounds to believe that everyone arrested was part of the rioting group; and 2) the city could lawfully complete the mass arrest without first ordering the crowd to disperse and giving plaintiffs an opportunity to comply.

In a prisoner's application to proceed in forma pauperis (IFP) on appeal, the application is denied where, although plaintiff had only two "strikes" under the Prison Litigation Reform Act (PLRA) and thus the PLRA did not automatically bar him from proceeding IFP, the court denied the application as a discretionary matter because of plaintiff's pattern of abusive litigation in the past and his failure to qualify for IFP status under the imminent danger exception.

In an action claiming that the government unlawfully wiretapped plaintiff's phone and placed him on a terrorism watch list, dismissal of the action is affirmed where plaintiff's claims were patently insubstantial and implausible.

In a petition for habeas review of a military court martial, dismissal of the petition is affirmed where: 1) there was no due process right to a court-martial panel of a minimum size; and 2) petitioner did not present evidence that a panel of less than six persons was likely to result in a miscarriage of justice.

In a murder prosecution, dismissal of petitioner's habeas petition for lack of jurisdiction is reversed where, because the state court of appeals held that challenges to the effectiveness of appellate counsel could not be brought pursuant to the state collateral review statute, but were instead required to be raised through a motion to recall the mandate in that court, that statute did not deprive federal courts of jurisdiction over habeas petitions alleging ineffective assistance of appellate counsel.

In a disability discrimination action alleging that defendant transit authority's refusal to promote plaintiff was the consequence of discrimination and retaliation, summary judgment for defendant is affirmed where defendant came forward with a legitimate, nondiscriminatory and nonretaliatory reason for refusing to promote plaintiff to positions that required driving: to wit, the provision of a prior settlement agreement stating that "under no circumstance will plaintiff be permitted to operate an authority vehicle."

Defendant's drug possession sentence is affirmed where: 1) the district court did not err in imposing an obstruction of justice enhancement because defendant failed to appear at his arraignment hearing; and 2) the district court did not plainly err in concluding that defendant's acceptance of responsibility, which did not occur until after he was re-arrested for another crime, was insufficiently timely to warrant a reduction for acceptance of responsibility.

In an action challenging the Department of Health and Human Services' (HHS) decision to terminate plaintiff-school district's Head Start funds as arbitrary and capricious under the Administrative Procedure Act, summary judgment for defendants is affirmed where the plain terms of HHS regulations required plaintiff, after it received an initial notice, to ensure that it did not have "undesirable and hazardous materials and conditions" at any of its playgrounds, and plaintiff failed to comply with that obligation.

In an appeal from the denial of plaintiff's action to enforce a settlement agreement it claimed the parties reached during the pendency of its suit for specific performance of a real estate transaction, the district court's order is affirmed where the parties had failed to reach agreement on a material element of the case.

Defendant's drug and firearm sentence is affirmed where: 1) 18 U.S.C. section 3582(c)(2) permitted courts to consider only the consequences of Sentencing Guidelines changes and did not reopen other elements of a sentence; and 2) the district court acted within its discretion in denying a sentence reduction based on a Guidelines amendment.

About DC Circuit

DC Circuit features news and information from the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, which hears appeals from U.S. District Courts in the District of Columbia. This blog also features news that would be of interest to legal professionals practicing in the D.C. Circuit. Have a comment or tip? Write to us.